No you want me to leave the list, because I was banned for criticizing admin abuse and the Arbcom of which you are a part. But don't worry, I have unsubscribed and am simply waiting on the confirmation so soon I will no longer be on this list and you can continue to ignore the real problems which is civility in general and the lack of desire to do anything about abusive admins interactions with editors. If you start to treat editors with respect, instead of throwaway commodities, then a lot of the problems on Wikipedia will be fixed.

On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 2:41 PM, GorillaWarfare <gorillawarfarewikipedia@gmail.com> wrote:
The thread is about an arbitrator who made a comment about their views on the list:

Thanks for pointing that out, Risker. I became aware of the article when browsing through the archives of the gendergap mailing list. Some of what is said there (on the gendergap mailing list) concerns me enough that I'm going to point out my concerns here. I'd like to join that mailing list (some very interesting things are being discussed there), but I'm a bit wary of doing so until things have calmed down a bit, or the moderators get a grip on some of the things being said there. Among other things, I noticed a posting about legal repercussions, someone suggesting doxxing/opposition research, and plans to block vote at ArbCom electionswith new editors recruited at editathons. Why would anyone go anywhere near that mailing list with that sort of thing going on? Going back to the Slate article, I think it is important to put on the record that the author of the article didn't approach us (ArbCom) for comments or a response. Carcharoth (talk) 00:53, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

You twisted this comment completely, insinuating that this arbitrator has only decided joining the list because they fear criticism:

Its not surprising that the arbcom would not like comments and be critical of a venue they do not control and cannot themselves silence critical comments about their decisions. I finf it unfortunate that an arb doesnt want to join the mailing list merely because some people here do not share the view that the arbcoms decisions are not all gold. 
 
I do agree that there were some comments that are off topic but thats true of all the lists, not just this one.

You then generalized to the entire Arbitration Committee:
 
In the end, to me, if the arbs decide not to join this list because they fear discussion, then we probably dont need them anyway and if they are unwilling to listen or discuss issues pertaining to the project, including poor decisions made by them, then that makes my thought process all the more true.

I don't see my responding to this as somehow off-topic.

she as a drafting Arbitrator in the case, had a lot more to do with the end result in which 2 women were kicked out of the project and at least one male with a long history of abuse was allowed to stay.

I'm not sure how familiar you are with the process of drafting an arbitration case. When other drafters propose remedies that they think are reasonable and I disagree, I do not show that disagreement by removing the remedies from the draft. I show that by voting, just like any other arbitrator. The drafting arbitrators do not decide the outcome of a case; they draft initial remedies so that the larger Committee can reach a decision.

I'm not sure how any part of that means I should leave the list. 

Your opinions and that I drafted the GGTF case are not why you should leave this list. Those are also not the things I named that make your participation on this list problematic.

– Molly (GorillaWarfare)

_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap